Search results

Warsame, a Canadian citizen, travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to attend Al-Qaeda training camps. On his return to Canada, he sent money to representatives of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. alleged that by attending the Al-Qaeda training camp and sending money, Warsame provided material support and resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Warsame claimed that the provisions on the basis of which he was charged violated the U.S. Constitution’s right to freedom of association because it criminalized his mere association with an organization. The court rejected this claim, finding that the statute did not impose “guilt by association,” but rather guilt by conduct that amounted to providing support or resources.

The court also held the statute did not violate Warsame’s constitutional rights to due process and to a jury determination on each essential element of the offense.

The Cambodian genocide (1975-1979) saw numerous serious crimes in violation of international law perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, in attempting to create a socialist government in Cambodia, took Cambodians from cities and forced their relocation into labor camps in the countryside. Physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease were prevalent. Elites, foreigners, and those considered enemies of the state were executed. It is estimated that almost 2 million people died.

Case 002/01 was limited to the crimes involved in the movement of the populations and executions at Tuol Po Chrey that occurred during the period of the Cambodian genocide. The case found defendants Nuon Chea, the Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea and Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea, guilty of crimes against humanity. The defendants were charged for the crimes of murder, political persecution, and other inhumane acts (forced transfer) for the two forced movements of Cambodians from the cities to rural areas and other related crimes. In addition, the defendants were found guilty of the added charges pertaining to the hundreds of executions of Khmer Republic soldiers and officials that occurred at Tuol Po Chrey, executed by Khmer Rouge forces.

Both defendants appealed.

Arafat Nagi is an American citizen who resided in Lackawanna, New York, prior to his arrest. From 2012-2014, Nagi demonstrated support and sympathy for ISIL and the situation in Syria through social media, electronic communications with family members, and conversations with other associated individuals. He also purchased combat gear. During this time, he travelled to Turkey twice, which the U.S. alleged was with the goal of ultimately traveling to Syria to join ISIL as a fighter. While Nagi claimed he was visiting family, his iPad search history and travel plans indicated otherwise.

The U.S. arrested and detained Nagi soon after his return from Turkey and Yemen in 2014 and charged him with attempt to provide material support to ISIL.

Nagi argued the case should be dismissed because he was protected by the First Amendment. However, the district court held that the defendant’s attempt to join a foreign terrorist organization amounted to actions not protected by the First Amendment, which does protect advocacy or association with terrorist organizations. The district court found Nagi’s travel, communications, and purchase of combat gear sufficient to demonstrate an intent to provide support – in the form of himself – to ISIL. 

From April 1975 to January 1979 the Khmer Rouge committed numerous crimes to create their socialist state. Case 002/02 was limited to prosecuting the crimes that occurred at security centers and worksites, including the executions of enemies and elites, forced marriages, and other inhumane treatment. In addition, the case included the genocide of the Vietnamese, who were fighting the Khmer Rouge forces, and the Cham peoples, who were persecuted for their religious and ethnic identity.

On 16 November 2018 the Trial Chamber found Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan guilty of crimes against humanity (including rape, forced marriage, and murder), grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide of the Vietnamese. The Chamber also convicted Nuon Chea of the genocide of the Cham peoples.

The accused were found guilty based on their leadership roles within the Communist Party of Kampuchea; Khieu Samphan had various roles, including President of the State Presidium, and Nuon Chea was the Deputy Secretary of the party. The Trial Chamber ruled that the accused failed to prevent and punish the crimes that occurred, even though they knew or had reason to know the crimes were being carried out.

Both accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Chagos Archipelagos are a collection of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Under British administration since 1814, they were home to approximately 1000 inhabitants by the 1960s who lived on and cultivated the land, educated their children and raised their families.

In 1964, the British and the United States governments entered into secret negotiations the outcome of which was the establishment of a military base on Diego Garcia, the Chagos Archipelagos largest islands. In order to do so, from 1965 until 1971, the population of Chagos was forcibly relocated: those who had left on trips abroad were denied re-entry, an embargo was put in place preventing the delivery of crucial food supplies and the remaining population was forcibly loaded onto ships and relocated to Mauritius and the Seychelles.

The present civil suit is brought by the indigenous peoples of Chagos, their survivors and their descendants against the United States and a number of high-ranking individuals within the US Government whom the plaintiffs consider responsible for their forcible relocation. By its memorandum opinion of 30 September 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion on procedural grounds, namely that it required further submissions with regards to the exercise of jurisdiction over the claim considering its implication of the United States, a party that ordinarily cannot be sued unless there has been an implicit or explicit waiver of immunity.